Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 110

Thread: Condolences to Beantown ...

  1. #31
    Needs to get out more DHaran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    8,402
    Wait, are you trying to claim they would have been ok with the deaths of more innocents just to catch him alive? That's easily the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
    S E C R E T S

  2. #32
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    I'm not sure if the small army invading Watertown and conducting one of the most ridiculous man-hunts I've ever seen didn't tip you off, but the government was dead set on catching him.

    I'm not saying they WANTED anyone to die, but they absolutely cared more about catching him than they did about random Joe Schmoe from Watertown.

  3. #33
    Needs to get out more DHaran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    8,402
    Any avoidable loss of life would have been 100% unacceptable just to catch him alive. I can't believe you'd even suggest such a ridiculous notion. All belief was that these guys were nobodies. They didn't even make an effort to catch Bin Laden alive and you think they would have let more people get killed to catch some 19 year old scrub terrorist? You're out of your freakin' mind to believe such nonsense.
    S E C R E T S

  4. #34
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    Quote Originally Posted by DHaran View Post
    Any avoidable loss of life would have been 100% unacceptable just to catch him alive. I can't believe you'd even suggest such a ridiculous notion. All belief was that these guys were nobodies. They didn't even make an effort to catch Bin Laden alive and you think they would have let more people get killed to catch some 19 year old scrub terrorist? You're out of your freakin' mind to believe such nonsense.
    It's your opinion that it's 100% unacceptable. You seem to think everyone's life is mighty precious for someone claiming that they would have shot a man dead in his back yard.
    Belief is not fact. They needed to find out if they were connected with any terrorist groups and at the very least find out why they did it.
    They did try to catch Bin Laden alive. The mission that killed him was aimed at bringing him in, not killing him. He chose to fight back and Seal Team 6 chose to kill him. His death was significant. The death of a 19 year old "scrub" isn't.

  5. #35
    Needs to get out more DHaran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    8,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    It's your opinion that it's 100% unacceptable. You seem to think everyone's life is mighty precious for someone claiming that they would have shot a man dead in his back yard.
    Belief is not fact. They needed to find out if they were connected with any terrorist groups and at the very least find out why they did it.
    They did try to catch Bin Laden alive. The mission that killed him was aimed at bringing him in, not killing him. He chose to fight back and Seal Team 6 chose to kill him. His death was significant. The death of a 19 year old "scrub" isn't.
    They already knew he wasn't anybody important, and if anyone was it was his older brother who was already dead. They already got info from the wife that he was a religious nutbag, and from his computer that he watched al qaeda videos online. The kid had almost nothing to offer them but meaningless confirmation of what they already knew. They would not have risked loss of life to keep the guy alive.

    And thank you for proving my point with the Bin Laden thing. Yes, they would have taken him alive, but he chose to fight back so they killed him to prevent unnecessary loss of life to capture him. That's why they killed the older brother as well. By the time they got to the kid he was wounded and weak and easy to catch without risk. Had he started throwing bombs and **** again don't pretend they wouldn't have killed him on the spot. And to claim Bin Laden is "insignificant" compared to a complete nobody makes no sense. Bin Laden had a wealth of intelligence to offer, this kid had nothing. You have it entirely backwards lol.
    S E C R E T S

  6. #36
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    They didn't want to kill the older brother. They got in a gun fight, shot back, he got ran over, they arrested him, took him to the hospital and then he died. If they were just going to kill him then they would have just killed him.

    Quote Originally Posted by DHaran View Post
    By the time they got to the kid he was wounded and weak and easy to catch without risk.
    Thank you for admitting that killing him in your backyard would have been unwarranted. That's all I wanted :)

    And to claim Bin Laden is "insignificant" compared to a complete nobody makes no sense. Bin Laden had a wealth of intelligence to offer, this kid had nothing. You have it entirely backwards lol.
    Where did I claim that Bin Laden was insignificant? I said keeping him alive as he was fighting back wasn't important enough compared to the weight of his death.

    While we're on the subject though, Bin Laden was a hardened, America-hating terrorist who would have rather died than to give anything useful to the USA. The 19 year old, didn't seem to hate America according to the people who knew him and was most likely stringed into the bombings by his brother. If he knows ANYTHING, the FBI will get it out of him with little to no effort. So no, I don't have it backwards. They would have gotten absolutely nothing from interrogating Bin Laden and they're likely to get something from the 19 year old. Something > Nothing.

  7. #37
    Needs to get out more DHaran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    8,402
    My mind is boggled that you don't understand this. They never WANT to kill anyone. They WILL kill to prevent loss of life, always. You stated that they'd allow innocent deaths to capture someone alive who has no importance whatsoever, that's what I'm saying is ridiculous.

    I misread your comment on Bin Laden, my mistake. However, nobody is capable of withholding information indefinitely, he had immense value alive as a prisoner. They killed him because that value was not worth losing a single Seal in a shootout aimed at keeping him alive. To assume they'd risk losing life, especially innocent life, to keep a small time nobody bomber alive is completely absurd. And as I said, the kid knows nothing of value that they don't already know.

    And yes it turned out his capture was relatively easy, but to assume it would be so would be irresponsible. My comments were based on what I would do had I discovered an armed terrorist in my backyard.
    Last edited by DHaran; 23-04-2013 at 15:43.
    S E C R E T S

  8. #38
    Dear Friend Korp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,837
    USA has no issues murdering civilians for the "greater good" DHaran, havent you followed Iraq or Afghanistan?

    But what is mind boggling is that DHaran thinks he would do a better job than the police or FBI. He would first of all find this person, then he would identify him as the wanted fugitive still while the fugitive havent noticed him. Then he would proceed to shoot this armed and dangerous guy (who already bombed several hundreds of people and killed a cop) without the fugtitive resisting at all. Thats amazing.

    They WILL kill to prevent loss of life, always. You stated that they'd allow innocent deaths to capture someone alive who has no importance whatsoever, that's what I'm saying is ridiculous.
    That you argue that they wont allow civilians causalities is ridiculous. USA has no such issues as been witnessed several times. But I guess there is people and people in DHarans world ;)

  9. #39
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    If he was of no importance whatsoever, why was there a small army dedicated to his capture?

    It's very clear to me that they very much wanted him alive and I'm not too privy on the idea that 30 minutes after they told the public they can leave their homes that he was caught just happened to be a happy coincidence. The FBI is very good at what they do and that involved finding and capturing people. If he was going to kill more people, he would have done so and taken a family hostage or something. He chose to hide. The FBI needed more eyes looking for him so they let the citizens out of their houses and sure enough, they found him.

  10. #40
    Needs to get out more DHaran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    8,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Korp View Post
    USA has no issues murdering civilians for the "greater good" DHaran, havent you followed Iraq or Afghanistan?

    But what is mind boggling is that DHaran thinks he would do a better job than the police or FBI. He would first of all find this person, then he would identify him as the wanted fugitive still while the fugitive havent noticed him. Then he would proceed to shoot this armed and dangerous guy (who already bombed several hundreds of people and killed a cop) without the fugtitive resisting at all. Thats amazing.

    That you argue that they wont allow civilians causalities is ridiculous. USA has no such issues as been witnessed several times. But I guess there is people and people in DHarans world ;)
    There was no greater good here, the guy is a nobody and they already knew it. There was no justification for further deaths for the sole reason of capturing him alive. To claim otherwise is idiocy. Even when someone has immense value, such as Bin Laden, they still won't risk losing people just to capture him. He had a gun, so they shot him in the face. It's that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    If he was of no importance whatsoever, why was there a small army dedicated to his capture?

    It's very clear to me that they very much wanted him alive and I'm not too privy on the idea that 30 minutes after they told the public they can leave their homes that he was caught just happened to be a happy coincidence. The FBI is very good at what they do and that involved finding and capturing people. If he was going to kill more people, he would have done so and taken a family hostage or something. He chose to hide. The FBI needed more eyes looking for him so they let the citizens out of their houses and sure enough, they found him.
    He had no value as a prisoner, he was important to kill/capture because he was out there KILLING PEOPLE. Not that difficult to get that concept. And that you think they let citizens out into danger hoping they'd help catch him is just retarded. You have a seriously flawed thinking process. Most of their search of the area was done, and it wasn't reasonable to keep the whole city on lockdown indefinitely, they had to let them out.
    Last edited by DHaran; 23-04-2013 at 16:13.
    S E C R E T S

  11. #41
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    Quote Originally Posted by DHaran View Post
    He had no value as a prisoner, he was important to kill/capture because he was out there KILLING PEOPLE. Not that difficult to get that concept.
    There are gang thugs who have killed more people than he has walking around the streets. They don't have personalized armies hunting them down.

  12. #42
    Needs to get out more DHaran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    8,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    There are gang thugs who have killed more people than he has walking around the streets. They don't have personalized armies hunting them down.
    Gangs don't plant bombs at public events. Next pointless comment?
    S E C R E T S

  13. #43
    Dear Friend Korp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,837
    There was no greater good here, the guy is a nobody and they already knew it. There was no justification for further deaths for the sole reason of capturing him alive. To claim otherwise is idiocy. Even when someone has immense value, such as Bin Laden, they still won't risk losing people just to capture him. He had a gun, so they shot him in the face. It's that simple.
    What? Did you read what i wrote? You argued that USA would have issues with the killings of civilians I just provided that they have no issues of killing civilians if they find it benefits their goal. Ergo "for the greater good" which I dont really mean, I think its absurd and disgusting.


    I am not convinced that they even killed Bin Laden, but thats another topic.

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...59326062_o.jpg Maybe something to reflect on.
    Last edited by Korp; 23-04-2013 at 16:20. Reason: Added link

  14. #44
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    Quote Originally Posted by DHaran View Post
    Gangs don't plant bombs at public events. Next pointless comment?
    Your right. Organized crime is nothing like Terrorism.

    *leaves thread*

  15. #45
    Needs to get out more DHaran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    8,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Korp View Post
    What? Did you read what i wrote? You argued that USA would have issues with the killings of civilians I just provided that they have no issues of killing civilians if they find it benefits their goal. Ergo "for the greater good" which I dont really mean, I think its absurd and disgusting.

    I am not convinced that they even killed Bin Laden, but thats another topic.

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...59326062_o.jpg Maybe something to reflect on.
    I said they wouldn't risk civilian life to capture someone alive that they could kill without risking civilian life. It's not me who isn't reading.

    You don't think Bin Laden is dead? lol I love conspiracy theorists, they're the easiest to make fun of.

    As for your picture link, if they want that kind of garbage to be taken seriously by idiots, they should at least spell "safety" right. It's a stupid statistic, and for obvious reasons that must be lost on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    Your right. Organized crime is nothing like Terrorism.

    *leaves thread*
    And there aren't specific task forces who's sole job is to deal with gangs and organized crime every single day? None of which plant bombs at public events to target innocents for no purpose. You aren't making any points, lol.
    Last edited by DHaran; 23-04-2013 at 16:28.
    S E C R E T S

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •